If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#471
|
|||
|
|||
At least that's what Bush tried to sell the ignorant masses.
mike regish wrote in message ... Talk about amusing... It used to be our government thought of war as a last resort. No more... |
#472
|
|||
|
|||
It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from
day 1. mike regish "Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... If that was the case, then every human would be born with an innate sense of right and wrong and every generation would have an even more refined sense of morality at birth. Sorry, doesn't work that way. Matt |
#473
|
|||
|
|||
"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message om... wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "mike regish" wrote in message news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03... Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell. For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of retribution from God either. No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such. It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument if you want your distinction to "stick". Pete What distinction? Moral vs religious? There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable group. That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source? Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The rest believe is some higher power. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or "without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. No offense to you personally, of course, and I think you are arguing reasonably about it. Maybe wrong, but still civil and reasonable. Consequently, we are on amicable terms. |
#474
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote: Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters... Matt Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it? Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had low self-esteem, I'd hide as well. Matt An old brahma bull has high self-esteem. He's bold and blustery, full of esteem, but still stupid. |
#475
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 16:04:56 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote: wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 17:21:10 GMT, Brooks Hagenow wrote: I am hardly a priest. I would like to make a correction though. Revisiting that site I found showing only 2.5% of the world's population were athiests I realized I don't actually know what an athiest is. Athiest is a religion. Reading further into the stats on that site they say 15% of the world's population have no religion and that number is falling, which I find surprising. I don't know what your point is, but I do know that the percentage of atheists in the U. S. is said generally to be about 10%, or 4 times the world percentage, assuming both numbers to be correct (an assertion of which I am uncertain) I'm curious to know what conclusions one can draw with either of these facts (assuming they are both correct). I also am curious about your assertion that "atheism is a religion". Definition #4 in the following: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion As far as I know, there are no atheistic altars, no stone buildings,no holy books, no wailing walls, no ceremonies, no prayers, no hymns, indeed, none of the things that are generally associated with religion.. Most of these aren't mentioned in any definition of religion with which I'm familiar. Religion is a system of beliefs, not artifacts. That's why the image of the virgin mary on a grilled cheese sandwich was bid up to $69,000 on eBay. You keep confusing fanatics with people who hold a genuine faith in a higher being. It really isn't that complicated. It is obvious that you've had a bad experience with organized religion at some point, but that is no reason to paint the whole world with your brush. Since we're in a flying forum, have you ever had a bad experience while flying? Do you even fly? If so, did you give up on flying because of one bad experience ... or one bad controller ... or one bad fellow pilot? Atheism, even modern philosophy, are all religious in nature despite the claims of the believers in these belief systems. Personally, I think it is an attempt by the religious to label atheists and secular humanists s "religious" in order to validate themselves, ( as they continually strive to do), even as they contend that atheism is anathema to them. A curious contradiction, to say the least. I find it equally curious that atheists, philosophers and others try so hard to avoid the term religion. Why are they so ashamed of their beliefs? They're not. They are ashamed to be associated with what you call religion, and the inhumane acts committed in its name. Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. Where is your authority for this contention? For every one you can provide, I can provide you a counter-authority. If every person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd be nobody left in less than a year. Matt Yet,no matter what religion or denomination you belong to, in all likelihood it has engaged in persecution, violence, and religious intolerance. And that's the reason why the Founders wanted religion (knowing its gory history) out of government and government out of religion. ********* By the time a boy has been two years in a church school he is immunized against religion. -- Colin Gordon |
#476
|
|||
|
|||
mike regish wrote:
It would if we didn't have religion indoctrinating hatred and bigotry from day 1. Nice excuse, but lacks creativity. I'll give it a D+. There are cultures that have virtually no organized religion, but engage in things such as cannibalism. Is that one of the moral values that evolution produces? Matt |
#477
|
|||
|
|||
jls wrote:
"Brooks Hagenow" wrote in message om... wrote: On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 15:01:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho" wrote: "mike regish" wrote in message news:r29od.79682$5K2.21834@attbi_s03... Morality is doing the right thing just because you know it's the right thing to do, not because you think some magical being is going to strike you down from above or send you to some imaginary hell. For what it's worth, not all religious convictions are based on fear of retribution from God either. No, some are based on the reward of 70 virgins and such. It's fine to say that you have moral conviction without religion, but don't be confused about what religion is or is not. You'll need a better argument if you want your distinction to "stick". Pete What distinction? Moral vs religious? There is little, if any, connection o the two. More immoral acts have been committed by the religious than probably any other identifiable group. That sounds like something you made up. Care to name a source? Although you might get lucky because a quick check on the net shows that only 2.5% of the world's population are athiests in the year 2000. The rest believe is some higher power. http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm Brooks, I don't know that this website is entitled to credibility. It calls atheism a religion, but atheism is the absence of religion. If you look at the etymology of the word, atheism means "without theism" or "without a god." That circumstance, i.e.,being without a god is hardly a religion. It's the "un-religion." The huge faction pushing that definition is intent on using it to prevent the USA from establishing an official stance "without god." If this faction can spin that proposition in enough channels across the land it can then make the argument that by being a government either indifferent to religion in the sense it embraces the no-god (as Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and many of the other founders meant the federal government to be) or is in effect atheist,then it must be violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. You are ignoring all of the definitions of religion. Not all require belief in a supernatural entity. Look it up, it is easy. Matt |
#478
|
|||
|
|||
jls wrote:
"Matt Whiting" wrote in message ... wrote: On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 15:51:59 -0500, Matt Whiting wrote: Except for cowardly anonymous internet ng posters... Matt Sticks in the old craw a litttle bit, doesn't it? Not at all. I just don't understand cowards. Never have and probably never will. I guess though that if I was weak in my convictions and had low self-esteem, I'd hide as well. Matt An old brahma bull has high self-esteem. He's bold and blustery, full of esteem, but still stupid. You seem an expert on bull, so I'll take your word on this. Matt |
#479
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:05:56 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote: It takes a true believer to blow himself up for his god. Organized religion has been killing people for hundreds, no, make that thousands of years. I meant true believer as in believing in the truth, not as in fanatic. I'm sure you mean the truth as you see it. And I'm sure these guys are blowing themselves up for the truth as they see it. And I'm sure the christians who burned the heretics did it for the truth as they saw it. That's the trouble and the danger with all you guys. You all know the "truth". |
#480
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 19:12:23 -0500, Matt Whiting
wrote: Committed by a very few on the fringes. If the atheists and philosophers did any research at all, they would know this. If every person in the world who professes a religious belief or affiliation was a wanton killer as you suggest, the world would have long ago ceased to be inhabited by humans. Since the majority of the population claim some religious belief, if each person killed even one other person, there'd be nobody left in less than a year. Matt Hitler was only one person. He was responsible for the death of 6 million Jews. It's not the number of people who commit the atrocities that's significant, it's the number who die. Millions upon millions have died thanks to religious beliefs, in barbaric fashion for the most part. And it's happening today. But hose with their heads buried in the religious sands (or in anatomical locations where the sun don't shine) just never see it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |